Jurow R, Paul R H
Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Apr;63(4):596-9.
There have been infrequent reports in the literature discussing maternal versus fetal rights. Such questions generally arise in circumstances in which the mother, for some reason, chooses to refuse a method of therapy which is deemed necessary to benefit or save the fetus. Previous reports have usually involved time periods of 12 to 24 hours, which provided sufficient time to solicit legal intervention. In the case presented here, the time limitation was believed to be within minutes. At issue was the opinion that immediate intervention was mandated in order to salvage a previously normal, full-term infant. This case report presents a dramatic confrontation and an illustration of a dilemma within the arena of contemporary obstetric care. The case in point involves the medical, ethical, and legal prospectives that must be considered when a mother refuses to undergo cesarean delivery in the case of acute and apparently definitive fetal distress.
文献中很少有关于产妇权利与胎儿权利的讨论报道。此类问题通常出现在母亲出于某种原因选择拒绝一种被认为对胎儿有益或能挽救胎儿的治疗方法的情况下。以往的报道通常涉及12至24小时的时间段，这为寻求法律干预提供了足够的时间。在本文所呈现的案例中，时间限制被认为在几分钟之内。争议点在于，为了挽救一个此前正常的足月婴儿，必须立即进行干预。本病例报告呈现了一场激烈的对抗，并说明了当代产科护理领域中的一个两难困境。该案例涉及在急性且明显确定的胎儿窘迫情况下，母亲拒绝接受剖宫产时必须考虑的医学、伦理和法律方面的问题。
